Can Montgomery Enterprises be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior if employee Sean Fleming got hungry at work, proceeded to get into a car accident on the way to a cookie store, during an on-the-clock fifteen minute break from his duties as a cashier, that do not require him to drive, and Montgomery Enterprises had an on-site break room with a fridge but without food?
BRIEF ANSWER
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Sean Fleming (“Fleming”) is an employee of Montgomery Enterprises (“Montgomery”). Fleming works as a cashier and his duties include ringing up merchandise, selling small appliance and renting videos. During Fleming’s work day he receives a forty-five minute unpaid lunch break. Additionally Fleming receives two, fifteen minute paid …show more content…
Cite. In Le Elder, defendant Dennis Lee Rice (“Rice”) was returning to his house after dropping his children off at school, when his vehicle struck the plaintiff, Virginia Le Elder (“Le Elder”). Cite. Rice’s job with McDonnell Douglas (“McDonnell”) required him to be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Cite. On the day of the accident, Rice planned to arrive at work late. Cite. After returning home, Rice intended to eat breakfast and read the newspaper. Cite. Furthermore, Rice intended to waited an hour and fifteen minutes after getting home to make a business call. …show more content…
First, Fleming’s trip to Cookie Haven was a minor deviation from his usual work duties. Similar to Lazar, the court found the employee’s trip to purchase a few items on the way home necessary to his comfort and convenience; Fleming’s trip to Cookie Haven was made for his own comfort and convenience. Additionally, because Fleming planned to bring cookies back for other employees, this provided a benefit to Montgomery. Since employees are more attentive after their personal needs are tended to, the satisfying of Fleming and other employee’s hunger provided a benefit to Montgomery. Therefore, Fleming’s action should be viewed as a minor deviation within the scope of his
BRIEF ANSWER
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Sean Fleming (“Fleming”) is an employee of Montgomery Enterprises (“Montgomery”). Fleming works as a cashier and his duties include ringing up merchandise, selling small appliance and renting videos. During Fleming’s work day he receives a forty-five minute unpaid lunch break. Additionally Fleming receives two, fifteen minute paid …show more content…
Cite. In Le Elder, defendant Dennis Lee Rice (“Rice”) was returning to his house after dropping his children off at school, when his vehicle struck the plaintiff, Virginia Le Elder (“Le Elder”). Cite. Rice’s job with McDonnell Douglas (“McDonnell”) required him to be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Cite. On the day of the accident, Rice planned to arrive at work late. Cite. After returning home, Rice intended to eat breakfast and read the newspaper. Cite. Furthermore, Rice intended to waited an hour and fifteen minutes after getting home to make a business call. …show more content…
First, Fleming’s trip to Cookie Haven was a minor deviation from his usual work duties. Similar to Lazar, the court found the employee’s trip to purchase a few items on the way home necessary to his comfort and convenience; Fleming’s trip to Cookie Haven was made for his own comfort and convenience. Additionally, because Fleming planned to bring cookies back for other employees, this provided a benefit to Montgomery. Since employees are more attentive after their personal needs are tended to, the satisfying of Fleming and other employee’s hunger provided a benefit to Montgomery. Therefore, Fleming’s action should be viewed as a minor deviation within the scope of his